The most emotive areas of the U.S.-UK debate — and the issues seized on in Republican attacks on the NHS — concern rationing of care and “end of life” provisions. There’s no disputing the fact that care is rationed in Britain — mostly for the chronically-ill elderly, but increasingly too for smokers, the obese, and others whose lifestyles are deemed “unhealthy.” It’s going too far to call the entire NHS “Orwellian,” as some U.S. critics have, but the acronym for the NHS body which decides whether particular treatments are cost-effective — and thus how long certain patients can live — certainly has an Orwellian ring to it: NICE.

As for whether bodies such as NICE constitute “death panels” … well, my dictionary defines a panel as “a small group of people brought together to discuss, investigate, or decide on a particular issue.” If that issue is whether or not to provide certain drugs or treatment to an individual and that person’s life depends on whether or not they get that treatment, then I’m with Sarah: “death panel” isn’t that much of a stretch.

It’s a testament to the ability of leftists to make that which is true sound ridiculous (“Come on! As if the Democratic candidate for president would ever have hung out with a terrorist!”) that the term has been offered up as evidence of right-wing paranoia. But here too, lawmakers appear to be backtracking, with the Senate Finance Committee saying it will drop “end of life” provisions from its proposed bill.

Just because there’s no “panel,” however, doesn’t mean the vulnerable will be protected under a government-run system. More insidious than any group of experts are the statist mindset and the institutional heartlessness that pervade any large publicly funded body. As I discovered over the last few years while dealing with the system on behalf of my dying mother, there’s no need for anyone to “pull the plug on granny” when the system as a whole takes a dim view of providing care for those deemed not to be sufficiently productive members of society.

Mum suffered from dementia and spent the last few years of her life in nursing homes. During her illness she had several stays in the hospital, and every so often some doctor would take my brother and I aside and whisper to us about “quality of life” and “letting her go.” We politely declined the invitation, on that grounds that as long as mum wasn’t in pain, and as long as her face lit up when we arrived to visit her, then by our quaint standards she had “quality of life.”

Mum didn’t require any expensive drugs or other treatment, but the “experts” had decided that she was a burden on the system. What she did need, in addition to basic medication for various ailments, was help to make sure she got enough to eat and drink, and time after time we had to ask doctors and nurses to please, if it wasn’t too much trouble, make sure she didn’t die from dehydration.

It’s important to add that on many occasions doctors and nurses showed great skill in taking care of mum. They also showed great kindness, both to her and to my brother and me. But even with the best of intentions, staff shortages and simple incompetence meant that if we hadn’t visited mum every day, and often twice a day, to make sure she was eating and drinking enough, she would certainly have died two or three years sooner that she did.

So yes, U.S. health care needs to be reformed to reduce costs, and there must be better provision for the poorest. I’m not qualified to say how it should be done, but I do know that Americans should keep the role of the government to an absolute minimum and rely instead on solutions based on the principles of freedom of choice and personal responsibility. There will be an element of rationing under any system — the free market is itself a form of rationing — but difficult decisions should be taken by patients and their families in consultation with health providers who are responsive to the demands of their customers, rather than by government bean-counters.

And the less the government takes from its citizens, the more they’ll have to spend as they see fit. One of the biggest objections to state-run health care is that if you want anything over and above what the state is prepared to provide, then you pay twice: once through your taxes and again for private treatment. For Obama, this means “those who can afford it” paying “a little bit extra.” “Spreading the wealth,” if you will.

The U.S. should not be looking to Britain for ideas about how to run health care in the 21st century. Americans, with their resources and resourcefulness, should be able to do much better.

But that’s a task for another day — right now the priority is to pull the plug on ObamaCare.

Mike McNally is a journalist based in Bath, England. He posts at PJ Tatler and at his own blog Monkey Tennis, and tweets at @notoserfdom. When he's not writing about politics he writes about Photoshop.

Click here to view the 96 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

96 Comments, 96 Threads

1.
Lynn Arlene Rossiter

As to the “poor” here in the U.S. not getting adequate service – puhleeeze. I live in downtown Los Angeles. Prenatal clinic flyers in Spanish adorn my front gate at least once a week. These clinics are paid for by taxes and are free to the illegals in my neighborhod. Then there’s the emergency room solution for ANYONE who needs it. No one is denied care in this country. Otherwise the article above is very good. What we need here in the U.S. is a return to commonsense and country and the Constitution and what it stands for. Kick the Progressives outOUTOUT!!!!

Pollster Frank Luntz argues that the term “public option” should be dropped immediately. The far more accurate “government option” should be substituted. It is my hunch that the Obama administration chose “public” to mislead the American citizenry.

If that issue is whether or not to provide certain drugs or treatment to an individual and that person’s life depends on whether or not they get that treatment, then I’m with Sarah: “death panel” isn’t that much of a stretch. — Mike McNally

A so-called panel is inherently inevitable. Those who say otherwise may very well be genuinely sincere. I don’t need to call anyone a liar to make my point. They could indeed be telling the truth as they see it. Unfortunately, the real word will butt in once the financial troubles overwhelm the system. Whether they like it or not—rationing health care will unavoidably required. “Death panels” of one sort or another will become a harsh reality.

With no one denied life-saving or prenatal care at an ER, as an EMT with friends working as doctors in an inner-city, Newark, NJ hospital, the “gap” are those with chronic conditions requiring ongoing care or expensive prescriptions, who also happen to find themselves unemployed, or too impoverished to afford either insurance or the prescriptions – even with the help of friends, family, church(es) and community.

A very small number indeed.

Most state assistance to people in that situation precludes them from getting a job and working up to having insurance, forcing them to stay on the assistance.

Solve the “gap” for the few people in that circumstance and we can all pretty much go home happy.

That being said, other improvements to the current system can be made, but nothing that can’t be solved exclusively by a combination of deregulation (permitting selling plans across state lines) and tort reform.

If the British system “borders” on Orwellian, anything the Democrats construct for the US will, without question, be straight out of 1984.

What the US needs in the coming years is a good dose of the *real* 1984…the Reagan one, not the Orwell one…

Those who follow Kevorkian have been transformed into zombies because only Antonio Gramsci had truth. Those who expected more out of people, like Mortimer Adler and C.S. Lewis are simply meanies who should not be listened to.

When it comes to end of life, those who pay more allegiance to Gramsci, are ready to pull the plug. After all, there is nothing afterwards, and the sick are just wasting money.

The countering view, offered by Adler, Lewis, et al, say there is more to life than this side of
eternity, and that this side of eternity prepares
what is to follow.

That is the big picture, and frankly the details
need only be boiled down to this referendum question: how much money does it take for a health care system to deliver care that medical science says ought to be the timeline.

Which is why Daniel Hannan is promoting the Singapore model. It takes power from bureaucrats
and gives it to those using the health care system, namely the patients.

Also, take a look at what Lawrence Solomon has to say about health care allowances.

When socialized medicine was imposed on Canada (against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians and complete with a doctor’s strike) the politicians made a “deal” with the drug companies too. They were guaranteed huge profits.
With a captive audience that government control of the population provides, we have achieved a certain distinction: Canada has the most over-drugged seniors in the world.
Medicine, as practised here boils down to assembly line and prescription pad. We pay for our own (unnecessary) prescriptions and serve as guinea pigs. Older people are warehoused and immediately put on a cocktail of disabling drugs and into pampers, needed or not. The lucky ones are those who have family willing and able to help them stay home in their old age.
Don’t let them do it America. Getting rid of this horrific system is harder than warding off the Marxist do-gooders in the first place.

There was nothing wrong with the NHS as first conceived. What is wrong now is the over involvement of left wing politicians and pressure groups. The NHS is now top heavy – too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Where once the top level administrators all had a medical background, now they are business studies graduates with little idea about life, let alone life in a hospital or medical practice. Their primary concern is government targets. If we could return to the way things were run in the 50s and 60s, the NHS would once more be something of which to be proud.

Where once the top level administrators all had a medical background, now they are business studies graduates with little idea about life, let alone life in a hospital or medical practice. Their primary concern is government targets. — sussex man

We’ll go STRAIGHT TO “business studies graduates”. And we’ll double-down with lawyers. No need to mess about with ‘doctors’ on OUR panel….unless they kowtow to the Secretary of HHS….if she isn’t replaced by Obama for her temerity in disavowing ‘single, i.e., GOVERNMENT, payer’ last weekend.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you REALLY want to foul things up, get the government involved.]

P.S. After all, President Reagan was right when he said….

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “We’re from the government. We’re here to help you.“

Obama is going to make EVERYONE with age or a health condition realize just how true those words are.

Actually the reason Dan, interviewed here was roasted in the UK is pure party politics.

The BBC are looking for anything they can use to bash the Conservatives, who are oddles ahead in the polls, and Dan is the flavour of the month. What is a great shame is that Cameron & his UK based colleagues did not do a better job of defending their MEP party-mate. They instead left it to the rightosphere and right-of-centre journalists.

There was a clear attempt to make comments by an MEP, with no leadership role in the party, seem as though they come from the author of Conservative NHS policy.

I’m embarrassed to say it, but despite the fact that I know most of the stuff that appears here is out and out fabrication, I’m still shocked when I follow links to find that there is absolutely no relation to the claim its being used to bolster

No disputing, except in the linked article, which is about DOCTORS who, when surveyed, said health care should be rationed based on how patients take care of their bodies. But the NHS says quite clearly:

The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments.

The survey found that medical professionals wanted to go much further in denying care to patients who do not look after their bodies.

Judging from the kind of logic employed here, they should ban doctors not the NHS. If that doesn’t make any sense to you, there’s some hope for you people after all.

I have lived in 12 countries, 4 of them (including UK) more than once. Without question the worst (by far) of the devoped countries for quality of health care is the UK. I can also state clearly that I prefer the health care services available in many developing countries to that in the UK.
I stopped using the NHS when it made my wife extremely ill through slovenly diagnostic practice. Even the quality of the private care – while roughly on a par with other places, is restricted by the drugs available/authorized for use + the equipment: MRIs, CAT scans etc.. There have been several instances where we knew from past experience that a certain antibiotic was the most effective treatment of a re-occuring illness – but had to take a less effective alternative as the drug was simply not available.
UK is a huge step down from the states.

“who also happen to find themselves unemployed, or too impoverished to afford either insurance or the prescriptions – even with the help of friends, family, church(es) and community.”

Those, who happen to find themselves in that situation file for medicaid and medicare and GET it “PRONTO”. There is no such thing as “I’m dying because I can not pay for it” thing. Any one who says otherwise is…… not saying the truth.

“Most state assistance to people in that situation precludes them from getting a job and working up to having insurance, forcing them to stay on the assistance.”

That’s part of the problem with our Democrat/Leftist run social programs, they aren’t designed to actually help people but rather turn them into life long (and even generational) government dependents. That’s why Welfare was designed to destroy the family and communities where people rely on it to survive.

Welfare should do the following:
1) Provide training and/or education to get the individual turned back into a contributing member of society.
2) Basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing for the individual and their family.
3) Day care for any existing children while attending classes, training, or in the final phases interviewing for jobs.
4) Basic health care for the individual and family including contraception in a form that is unable to be missed, forgotten, or easily fail. This includes both male and female recipients, if you cannot provide for your current children you’ve got no business having more until you can do so.
5) Assistance for any physical or learning disability that is impeding their progress if the disability can be treated.
6) Require results or benefits are terminated. That means they need to pass their classes, complete their training, etc.

Some people may call me heartless but if someone is not willing (that doesn’t include those who are unable) to work and provide for themselves and their family then they can starve or freeze to death. I’m perfectly willing to help anyone willing to help themselves, but I’m not willing to waste the resources that could help others who have fallen on hard times on those that are basically parasites. I also absolutely despise that I’m forced to do so through my taxes. I’d much rather take that extra money and use it to help out an elderly person in my area who needs some home repair or maintenance but is living on a fixed income and cannot afford it. Or some family who is struggling to make ends meet because they have lost an income or two to the bad economy or a tragic loss.

Canada’s looking headlong into being dragged likewise straight into the health care fight, too.. Their incoming Canadian Medical Association president says their system is “imploding” and is likely more “precarious” right now than their citizens probably even realize..

Please feel free to bookmark and graciously share with recurrent naysayers (read: White House-associated among others) who claim those self-advocating against Canada’s quality of care are a very few and far between group of (un-Canadian???) “disgruntleds”..

Mum suffered from dementia and spent the last few years of her life in nursing homes. During her illness she had several stays in the hospital, and every so often some doctor would take my brother and I aside and whisper to us about “quality of life” and “letting her go.”

I sure would want to be let go under these conditions. The demented vegetable life is not for me, thank you.

You make it sound so simple. I’m not sure how you managed to ascertain from those brief details what my mum’s quality of life was, but as she didn’t have a ‘living will’ it was for my brother and me to judge.

Maybe, given your wisdom, you should apply to Obama for a job on one of those ‘panels’.

I sure would want to be let go under these conditions. The demented vegetable life is not for me, thank you. — A Ruckus of Dogs

….that’s YOUR choice. So fill out your living will that when a panel of ‘government’ experts, i.e., bureaucrats, deem you non compos mentis, they can make an end of you.

As for the rest of US, I think we’d rather make such decisions for ourselves, or have a trusted friend decide. Not some government hack who is probably more worried about their budget than anything else.

Unalaska. Again, I’ve never boasted of high intelligence, nor am I educated, nor am I a member of your mythical regular-person hating elite. I don’t even have a degree, English is my second language. Probably just an average person, I’d say. So it should mean something to you when I call you people idiots.

Its the very address that I copied and pasted when I followed the link. If you don’t believe me, go to the second page of this article and hit the link at “There’s no disputing the fact that care is rationed in Britain”

Hilariously enough that’s exactly what the article is not about! Even the headline screams it at you–:Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors. I doubt you’ll find out for yourself, however. The reason I consider you people stupid is that you believe everything you’re told from these sources, EVEN AFTER THEY’VE BEEN SHOWN TO BE DISHONEST REPEATEDLY! When you let people take advantage of you that often, there’s no other word for it.

I’ll answer that, Free Quark. When an insurance company refuses to pay for a treatment, they’re only refusing to pay for it. You are still able to spend your own resources on a treatment you deem appropriate. However, when the government refuses to pay for a treatment, they have a tendency to pass laws that forbid you from pursuing treatment on your own, even without reimbursement. That’s what we’re afraid of- being judged as “life unworthy of life” by a bureaucrat whose decision cannot be appealed or circumvented.

A simple concept: Most of us realize that if we don’t die, we will get old. If we get old, we will get health problems. Dealing with them will cost money.

My family saves money, for cars that fail, for life’s predictable disasters. We don’t have fancy cars, giant TV sets, big life styles. Yes, we get insurance also. My mom could live in a big house, but chooses to live modestly so that she has financial alternatives when predictable disasters occur. She was a schoolteacher, as was my deceased father. Nonetheless, they managed to save up quite a tidy little bundle. They worked hard and practiced thrift to stay out of debt and make the most of the income they had.

Her insurance and Medicare cover most of her medical expenses. But when the time comes, she and we have resources to ensure that her final years (predictable) are as comfortable and happy as possible.

Bottom line: we are responsible for our own lives and the care of our loved ones.

If we work hard and save for our own security, why is it incumbent on us to provide for others? We do give to charities, and help people with tragic circumstances in various ways, by our own choice. I don’t see that it’s the business of government to make me financially responsible for the poor decisions of others. Sure, it’s not that cut and dried, some people are hapless and helpless. But I have no faith in government to solve these problems.

Death panels are inevitable under socialized medicine, and such panels are guided by “life boat ethics”.

“Life boat ethics” is the term for the attempt to find ethical principles in emergency situations, with the prime example being the case where one is stuck in a life boat with a limited capacity, and you have to choose between saving your child or your mother. Clearly this is a no-win situation. It becomes even worse when someone else takes away your choice.

However, this whole approach to ethics is flawed at the outset because life isn’t lived under emergency conditions most of the time.

If you step back and regard the essence of the socialized medicine debate in ethical/political terms, what emerges is that medicine is a side issue in what is really a fight between egoism/individualism on the one hand, and altruism/collectivism on the other.

If you’re for life, liberty and the pursuit of your OWN happiness, then defeat socialized medicine, socialized banking, socialized car making, socialized energy,… and on an on.

Unialaska–>I’m not sure what you meant to imply with those articles. Are you contending that they are compelling NHS workers to lose weight, etcetera, because there’s this:

He said: “Many businesses, such as Tesco, have introduced physical challenges, with good results.

“Some NHS Trusts have also set targets to staff in terms of a total amount of weight lost.”

His report recommends that the NHS set up an “activity challenge” either as an annual event or as a “cumulative, measured, activity goal”.

NHS organisations should also “challenge their staff to reduce smoking” over the next year.

The review found that more than one in five of NHS staff smoke and 40 per cent exercise on just two days or less a week.

Sickness absences are one and half times as high as in the private sector, the report warns.

Improving the health of the NHS’s 1.4 million staff could save more than half a billion pounds a year, and create the equivalent of 14,500 extra staff.

If that’s your point–and I’m guessing here, because only you could possibly know what you meant by linking those articles–then thank for proving what I said earlier. Here’s a tip for you and McNally–read the articles you link to first. A link by itself is probably enough of an appeal to authority for the small minds frequenting this place, but many people who come from a tradition of upright perambulation read the links.

Nobody in the U.K really cares what health system you have in the U.S.

We object to the mis-representation of ours.
I will try and explain why the N.H.S is widely supported .

It is not really to do with entitlements and big government ,it’s the ideology.

American’s constantly report on your values that gives you an identity- freedom,liberty ,pursue happiness etc.
It’s the fabric ,which leads to pride in the U.S. and it should.

Benefits and health care are not the same here.
We strongly believe that health as much as we can shouldn’t be based on ability to pay.
Policy in a democracy reflects society so it’s about us and our values.

I work in the N.H.S and i don’t just support it blindly.

We whine and complain about it like we do about the weather,but nobody else can,we get really pissy .

It’s the concept that we mostly support.
We are not as divided across political and social lines as the U.S.
Sometimes i am shocked by your left/right civil war

However reform has and is needed ,we debate this constantly.It is not about what the government want’s- it’s us the taxpayer.

Death squads?
NICE guidance is developed by a number of independent advisory groups made up of health professionals, those working in the NHS, patients, their carers and the public.

However, NICE guidance does not replace the knowledge and skills of individual health professionals who treat patients; it is still up to them to make decisions about a particular patient in consultation with the patient .

Clinical guidelines are recommendations by NICE on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions within the NHS. They are based on the best available evidence. While clinical guidelines help health professionals in their work, they do not replace their knowledge and skills.

….NICE guidance does not replace the knowledge and skills of individual health professionals who treat patients; it is still up to them to make decisions about a particular patient in consultation with the patient. — mags

No. NICE guidance does not replace the ‘knowledge and skills’ of medical professionals.

Instead, it constrains the use of such ‘knowledge and skills’. Or are you calling Mike a ‘liar’?

You’re the one always complaining that tort lawyers greedily drive up the cost of care with frivolous lawsuits: NOW (above No. 35)you want to tout the ability to sue insurance companies as a good thing?

Aside from your mendacious approach to tort and bad faith lawyers, isn’t it better as a society to spead more health care dollars across more people even if it means cutting off the right to sue the government for a misdiagnosed ingrown toenail? You still go to the VA for all those shoulder injuries suffered leaning against walls in the PX don’t you? I mean the care you receive seems decent enough yes?

So the ability to sue over health acre cannot be seen as any basis to oppose health acre.

Can someone please explain to me why we should continue with this irrelevant discussion of the NHS vs. … what?

NHS exists because the UK’s laws allow for it. Let them live with that.

The United States of America is not subject to UK or even EU law – not yet, anyway.

Roe v. Wade specifically forbids most of what’s proposed in the Democrat’s socialized medicine plan, which legislates every aspect of the relationship between doctor and patient. The question of that authority has been settled by the Supreme Court – Congress doesn’t have it.

Our Constitution does not give Congress the authority to legislate “free” health care for American citizens. It also doesn’t give Congress the authority to run an insurance business with U.S. Taxpayers’ money.

Arguing over whether NHS is good or not, or whether we want to see a similar (?) system here or not is a tacit agreement that Congress has the authority to do that which it expressly DOES NOT have the authority to do.

This entire line of discussion is more of a distraction than the fact that BHO has never publicly released probative documentation affirming his Article II eligibility to be elected.

Tort reform? Fine. Good luck with that. Free up the market? Yes, that would help a LOT more than getting the government involved. But can we focus on the issue – getting BACK to a market that supports affordable routine health care – instead of this endless pissing contest about whose system is “better”? It’s an apples vs. oranges debate and it will never, ever contribute to a solution.

Our Constitution does not give Congress the authority to legislate “free” health care for American citizens. It also doesn’t give Congress the authority to run an insurance business with U.S. Taxpayers’ money.

Yes, we love the constitution until its time to have an extra-legal war. Then, what constitution?

How uncommonly weasly of you: so do I then conclude that you DO NOT claim that tort lawyers are driving up the cost of health care by frivolous lawsuits?

In that event, is the cost of US healthcare uncommonly high for systemic reasons that a national plan would change? Or do you want to go back to claiming that only greedy lawyers drive up the cost of care?

Learning what? That something which is already unconstitutional here wouldn’t work here? Ever heard of the Department of Redundancy Department? You’re not going to learn anything from NHS that is applicable to our situation. Our Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate “free” health care. Period. Engaging in a debate about how bad the NHS is only serves to beg the question of whether or not it’s legal to implement one here. It’s not.

.

@43. Moho: – Yes, we love the constitution…

We sure do. Which is why – when it comes to the use of military force – we require authorization by Congress before action is taken. Like I said – UK law doesn’t apply here.

My friend, Kay, asked her Dr. about surgery to correct a spinal problem. She was told she would have to take a drug stress test. She is on Medicare and carries supplemental ins. So, you either pass the stress test or no surgery.

“The first is that the poor enjoy a generally better standard of care in the UK than in the U.S.”

This one is absolutely false. The poor has Medicaid and subsidies (implicit)through hospitals if they are uninsured. Some also pay out of pocket, but the poor in America enjoy really good access to healthcare just like the well-to-do are. It’s not necessary to try and employ an equivalence between the NHS and the American healthcare system. Britons don’t know any better because they have always had socialized medicine: I’m pretty sure if they never did socialized medicine they wouldn’t be rushing to try and implement it.

Goy/46: The “general welfare” clause of the constitution has been used to justify welfare to poor families, and medicare. Why do you think for a minute that the feds cannot provide a system of taxpayer funded healthcare?

Painful though it is to admit, even mr. pelto is alert to the significance of the British NHS and what it means for us if somehting remotely like it is adopted. What does it mean?

First, more money to provide more things defined as “health care” (viagra, paxil, ambien, braces, cosmetic surgery, psychological sessions for people that can’t open the subzero without being “depressed” or “anxious,” people with “restless legs,” a “growing problem,” and whatever else prevents some people from working a honest day’s work) to more people.

Second, it means that the health care budget will grow.

Third, it’ll be impossible to eliminate it since everyone will want to keep it. Why? Because at least 47 million people will have the free care they didn’t want to pay for previously. And more millions will be getting braces etc on the backs on other taxpayers.

Goy, you don’t understand British law or American law. Constitutionally, only Congress can declare war. The President asked to use force pursuant to an ostensible mandate to invade that came from the UN. That manadate was non-existant–it did not authorize member states to initiate force without approval and participation from the UN. The US involvement in Iraq went far beyond the UN mandate.

In short:

1) Congress gave away its ability to declare war to the President. Thus the Iraq war was unconstitutional. The War Powers Act is also unconstitutional, as unconstitutional as you claim health care reform is, at least.

2) Bush’s pretext for the war–that it was mandated by the UN–was false, and undertaken in extra judicial fashion. I understand that you don’t know what this term means, so I will tell you. It means that there is a governmental process to undertake an action, but the actor undertakes the action without observing the process.

3)Even under the fig leaf of the UN, the US went far beyond the scope of the UN resolution.

It makes me laugh. You people wrap yourself up in the constitution, except when there’s something you really want to do. Then, meh…its not so important. I can’t figure out if you’re too stupid to know better, or just plain hypocrites.

@49. I blame Pelto: – The “general welfare” clause of the constitution …

Yeah, some useful idiot always tosses this red herring into the bait bucket without reading what the Founders had to say about it.

Jefferson:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.“

Madison:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. … With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.“

The programs you mention affected a small portion of the population. Socialized medicine will put the government in control of health care for every citizen in the country, so it’s not a straightforward as you’ve convinced yourself.

But yes, let’s DO have that discussion. In public. On the internet. In the blogosphere. In the townhalls. On Fox News and over the air on Rush, Mike and Tammy’s radio shows. Let’s let the People have the chance to say, “this far, and no farther,” now that people are a tad more aware of what liberties are at stake.

You’re aware, I’m sure, that unconstitutional programs have slipped through in the past. FDR’s so-called “New Deal” became law before it was largely repealed because it was unconstitutional. FDR even went to the extreme of trying to pack the SCOTUS bench to get around that fact. He failed miserably. The more the Democrats push socialist programs, the more people are digging into the Constitution, Fed. Papers and the like – just like they did back then.

After the Democrats come up with the Constitutional authority to create this monstrosity, then we can talk about allowing the feds to usurp control over another 15-20% of the economy, and creating a multimillion-voter bloc dedicated to keeping it alive regardless of how quickly it bankrupts the nation.

Besides, it costs nothing and helps educate people. In fact, I’ve fired off several missives based on this thread to one of the ‘wheels’ in my community who supports the idea of one-payer, government-based medicine in America.

Indeed. I’ve been pummeling that person with information gathered from this thread and the comments thereon.

You’re confused. See the Joint Resolution. Congress authorized the use of military force.

A formal “declaration of war” was not needed any more than when Clinton authorized bombing raids in the Balkans and authorized CIA operations to destabilize the Serbian government (which, unlike Saddam, never posed a significant threat anywhere outside their immediate sphere of influence). A formal declaration of war was ALSO not required for Clinton to conduct his air war against Saddam in the ’90s.

And IIRC, Congress never declared war on that poor camel Clinton shot in the ass with a multi-million dollar TLAM – you know… when he stepped on his Johnson instead of stepping on Osama.

- The President asked to use force pursuant to an ostensible mandate to invade that came from the UN.
“Ostensible mandate”??? Please don’t make me chuckle so hard. Again, read the Joint Resolution. Here’s the only section relevant to your confusion (my emph.):

(a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Nothing in there about “ostensible mandate”. You just made that up. The UNSC resolutions had been in place for months and years – ALL OF THEM, every single one, left unenforced by the pathetic, corrupt, socialist U.N.

All of the “determination” conditions that followed this section were met. If you don’t “like” the way they were met, that’s really too bad. I feel for you but by this point, the U.N. had demonstrated for ten years that it had no intentions whatsoever of dealing decisively with Saddam. Only a genuine moron would have thought something would change once Congress authorized the use of force. And guess what – nothing did change. Even with the threat of imminent invasion, now approved by the U.S. Congress, Saddam STILL delayed, obfuscated and refused to provide proof of disarmament. Or maybe you think he should have been allowed ANOTHER ten years to comply with the armistice he signed at the end of the Gulf War. So the “determination” clause was essentially met before the Joint Resolution was even approved.

AFTER Joe Wilson’s serial lies were validated by the Washington Post and the New York Times, however, these same slime bent over backward claiming that their approval was “conditional”, and that they’d been “lied to”. The floodgates then once again opened to full-on media attacks against Bush and the Republicans – just as they’d been doing right up until 9/11 – to “avenge” Al Gore’s pathetically lame inability to carry his own home state in the 2000 Election. As a result the Republic has come to the brink of ruin, with an inept, inexperienced “community organizer” pretending to be its leader.

There is nothing in the Joint Resolution that restricts the President to actions limited to “approval and participation” of the UN, which was rendered impotent due to clear conflicts of interest among its members.

- Congress gave away its ability to declare war …
Again, that’s your confusion. No formal “declaration of war” was needed.

- Bush’s pretext for the war–that it was mandated by the UN–was false, …
Your opinion. Not supported by the facts OR determinations since. The fallacious “Bush Lied” meme has you running in irrational circles. Enjoy the exercise. You probably need it.

The most important thing people need to be educated on right now is the very short list of enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution.

Want to argue the merits of a course of action Congress has demonstrated its authorization to take? Sure. But this entire line of discussion is a distraction and, again, begs the question of Congressional authority.

In fact, any line of discussion that isn’t aimed squarely at getting routine health care costs back to an affordable level is a distraction.

Then you should have said so. Using quotation marks is all well and good, but only if it is an actual quote. You might have said, “To paraphrase Reagan,” or somesuch. Details, my friend, details. (I don’t mean to beat you about the head about it, but when I get an admittedly very rare opportunity to correct you, I jump on it!)

29. jodetoad: “If we work hard and save for our own security, why is it incumbent on us to provide for others?” Because the bleeding heart liberals demand that the sucessful in life subsidize the lazy, shiftless, niggardly, and stupid. Easy!

41. goy: “Arguing over whether NHS is good or not, or whether we want to see a similar (?) system here or not is a tacit agreement that Congress has the authority to do that which it expressly DOES NOT have the authority to do.” My response to this statement is a question: Has that ever stopped them before? They’re gonna do what ever they can get away with.

56. Chuck Pelto: Now I feel better! (Pats self on back.) I corrected the great Chuckle, and he even admits it! My day is made! (Even though he still got it wrong!)

Nope! Not French, just a good ol’ hillbilly who likes me some accuracy. Personally, I don’t consider requiring accuracy to be quibbling. You’re just sore cause I (a sniveling lesser) caught your misquote. Not that it really matters, or anything, but still!

If you’re asking, my opinion is that no, this issue is not important in itself. And that would go for a comparison of the US vs. the PRC’s or Japan’s or India’s or France’s systems – or that of any number of other countries who don’t use our Constitution to define their government.

Worse yet, engaging in debate over this – in the context of opposing socialized medicine in the U.S. – freely begs the question of Constitutional authority to even consider it here which, as I’ve already noted, should be the first order of business. We’ve slid very far down the slippery slope by NOT demanding Constitutional justification for every law or resolution Congress passes. And while even Mofo is absolutely wrong on all the particulars concerning OIF, s/he’s absolutely right that actions taken by the Congress have to pass Constitutional muster. Socialized medicine doesn’t even come close.

But like I said – knock yourself out. IMHO, by engaging this topic, anyone opposed to socialized medicine in the U.S. is tacitly ceding the point that Congress has the authority to inflict it on us in the first place. They don’t.

“When an insurance company refuses to pay for a treatment, they’re only refusing to pay for it. You are still able to spend your own resources on a treatment you deem appropriate. However, when the government refuses to pay for a treatment, they have a tendency to pass laws that forbid you from pursuing treatment on your own, even without reimbursement.”

So where does this happen? Certainly not in the UK, if you don’t like what the NHS is doing, you just pay and get private treatment.

“BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!

You can:

[1] Sue an insurance company. You can’t sue the federal government.

[2] You can, pay your own way to medical care with an insurance company. You can’t if the government controls medical care.

[3] You can, if you don’t like your insurance company and you don’t have one foot in the grave already, CHANGE your insurance company. You can’t change the federal government.”

[1] If this is the case in the US then it sucks, but in the UK, people can and do sue the NHS on a regular basis.

[2] Of course this depends on the detail of Obama’s bill, but regarding other countries, the norm is that if you don’t want to be part of the government system, you can pay to be privately insured.

[3] Unfortunately, many people only realise they want to change their insurance company when they are sick and no other insurance company will touch them, you can change the government though, it’s called an election

At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less what healthcare system the US chooses, but if you’re going to criticise others, just stick to truth rather than fiction.

“Britons don’t know any better because they have always had socialized medicine: I’m pretty sure if they never did socialized medicine they wouldn’t be rushing to try and implement it.”

We maybe wouldn’t implement it in exactly the same way but I’m pretty sure we would still be aiming for something along similar lines, after all it’s not just the UK that has ‘socialised’ medicine, every single country in the developed world has some form or other of publicly funded healthcare, the US included (medicare, medicaid, VA)

At the end of the day, I couldn’t care less what healthcare system the US chooses, but if you’re going to criticise others, just stick to truth rather than fiction. — Mark J

….Apples to Oranges?

In that comment was talking about the proposed US system under Obamacare, Mark. NOT the NHS.

Earlier I was talking about the NHS.

Why don’t you cite the proper comment instead of playing mix-and-match to come up with something totally disingenuous. Or are you a Labor supporter? We have that ilk over here. But they’re called ‘progressives’. But they’re REALLY latter-day bolsheviks.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. My earlier comment, the one that seems to have rankled you’re ire, was about NICE as a ‘death panel’. Why don’t you address THAT?

You both-goy and Pelto–are kidding yourself in assuming the unconstitutionality of nationalized healthcare. Your obstinate insistence on refusing to acknolwledge reality is one big problem for you.

Please tell me why the “general welafre” clause isn’t enough constitutional justification (hint: your simple disagreement with prior supreme court decisions upholding the general welfare clause as authority is not really an argument, any more than people who insist the earth is flat have an “argument.”).

The two main reasons people opppose govt healthcare are: one, because we prudently oppose government control of anything; two, because aside from the danger of government control, it will deprive us of free choice and be ineptly run for the benefit of govt unionized employees.

But if you want to start arguiing the elgality of it, you’re out there with the legal luddites that insist that the income tax is illegal etc. Do you really want to blow your credibility on such a untenable basis?

@63. HonestJon: – This is precisely the position I take on the whole “birth certificate” bunch of BS.

Well your position stands on pretty thin ice – unless you have some evidence no one else knows about showing that BHO has ever publicly released probative documentation affirming his Article II eligibility to be elected POTUS.

- I sincerely wish that you, goy, would do the same.
Why on earth should I take your position on that issue? And what’s more, if you think it’s such a distraction (notably, without actually explaining why), what’s the point of bringing it up… again?

Now I feel better! (Pats self on back.) I corrected the great Chuckle, and he even admits it! My day is made! (Even though he still got it wrong!) — HonestJon

Now you can go home.

RE: [OT] On Being French

<iNope! Not French, just a good ol’ hillbilly who likes me some accuracy. — HonestJon

Must have SOME French blood in ya.

I’m reminded of that line from My Fair Lady, where Professor Higgins is with Colonel Doolittle outside the theatre.

The French don’t really care what they do, as long as they pronounce it properly.

Combined with a touch of the l’sprit gallic, i.e., pure orneriness. [Note: Heh....a single word that means two things: (1) having to do with the French and (2) coming from the gall bladder. How apropos. And I have to wonder at the etymology for gall is related to the French.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I went to a restaurant that serves 'breakfast at any time' so I ordered French toast during the Renaissance.]

Demonstrate how that clause gives Congress blanket authority to exercise whatever power they like over any area of governance and/or any portion of the economy they choose by uttering the words “general Welfare”. Show how this clause overrides the enumeration of powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. Go ahead – I can’t wait to see you dispute Jefferson’s and Madison’s unequivocal intent:

Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

Madison: “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. … With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

- … your simple disagreement with prior supreme court decisions …
There are no SCOTUS decisions that recognize the authority of Congress to legislate the relationship between doctor and patient using the “general Welfare” clause. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. Go look up Roe v. Wade.

Again, since you were non-responsive to this point the first time: the programs you mention affected a small portion of the population. They aren’t functionally equivalent nor are they even close to the same scope of so-called “universal” health care. Medicare – completely ignoring the fact that it’s a cost-ratcheting, bankrupt failure – does not give Congress direct control over some 15-20% of the nation’s economy. You’re trying to argue a case using an irrelevant precedent, and completely ignoring the inconvenient truth that the precedent you’ve chosen has led to failure, to boot.

Do you really want to blow your credibility on such a untenable basis?
You’re sure working overtime to miss the point. I wonder why. What’s the matter – afraid of a little real public discussion on this? Afraid it’ll get the same public scrutiny as the “death panel” idea and result in the same outrage and failure of the bill?

The fact is that this country desperately needs to have this discussion, as I’ve already stated and – again – you were non-responsive. But let’s DO have that discussion. Out in the open. In public. On the internet. In the blogosphere. In the townhalls. On Fox News and over the air on Rush, Mike and Tammy’s radio shows. Let’s let the People read the Constitution and have the chance to say to the socialists, “this far, and no farther,” now that they’re acutely aware of what liberties are at stake and have some idea how far into their lives and their pockets the Democrats want to dig.

Access is what the bureau-rats of all government agencies at all levels of government have in spades. — Pelaut

TEHRE’S an interesting aspect: ‘access’.

One of the key aspects of ‘access’ is availability.

Currently, I sse one of the big problems in the US is ‘availability’. The AMA has a hammer-lock on the generation of doctors. This limits ‘access’ dramatically. As well as keeping the pricing HIGH because of limited access. It’s a monopoly that if it were broken up, competition would cause pricing to drop significantly.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[All monopolies ultimately devolve into institutions for the sole purpose of power and profit. -- CBPelto]

after all it’s not just the UK that has ’socialised’ medicine, every single country in the developed world has some form or other of publicly funded healthcare, the US included (medicare, medicaid, VA)

How many of these ‘socialised’ systems are purely socialized? Most developed countries have a private sector that people use when they don’t wish to wait or when they need some service that’s provided in a better manner.

66. goy: “Well your position stands on pretty thin ice…” That’s entirely your opinion. And here’s why: If there were meat on them bones, the hyenas would have chewed it off long before now. This argument is NOT A WINNER politically speaking. Otherwise, the Republicans would have been all over this from the beginning. So would have Hillary and all the other Dem candidates last year. To me, sir, it is equivalent (if opposite) to the “Bush lied, people died” meme or the “9/11 troofers.” IMHO, endlessly flailing away at it discredits you somewhat. That having been said, I do agree with most of the other arguments that you put forth. Believe what you will, but again, IMHO it makes you look a bit detached from reality to continually put forth this argument in public. And I’m a pretty conservative guy on average, all things considered. If I felt like this story had legs, I’d be all in! But it doesn’t. For better or worse.

Furthermore, goy wrote: “Why on earth should I take your position on that issue? And what’s more,…what’s the point of bringing it up… again?” Here’s the thing: The vast majority of Americans rightly or wrongly don’t believe that it’s a worthwhile argument at this point. Most of the rest couldn’t care less. Sure, small fringe minorities will always be true believers or true disbelievers, but people also followed Jim Jones and David Koresh. And, you brought it up again (completely off-topic) earlier in this thread (post # 41), not me.

67. Chuck Pelto: “Now you can go home.” I was already home. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been fooling around trying to debate you! Next, you wrote, “Must have SOME French blood in ya.” Not to my knowledge. Pure English heritage; most notably Townsend and Crowe. I do feel the powerful desire to say to you, “I fart in your general direction!” however. So you could possibly be correct. Finally, “…And I have to wonder at the etymology for gall is related to the French.” Mayhaps it indirectly refers to “Gauls.” Just a guess.

What is most need is least discussed, Tort reform.
By forcing doctors to test for every possible condition we drive up costs.
By forcing doctors to pay HUGE insurance premiums, we drive down quality of care.
My neighbor left her Pediatrician practice as she was forced to see so many patients in order to pay her 10 thousand dollar insurance premium that she worried about missing something and being sued. This was a doctor that had never had a complaint against her.

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin…), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided “who shall live and who shall die.” — President Obama’s call with the rabbis today — as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline’s and other clerics’ Twitter feeds [Note: Emphasis added....]

And guess who gets to decide “who shall live and who shall die”. Three guesses…..first two don’t count….

You now seem to want to beat this topic for some reason. Didn’t you say it was a distraction? I did. Why are you still pursuing it? And with utterly off-topic, irrelevant comments, to boot?

Since you want to pursue it, I’m happy to correct you on this score.

Pay attention.

There is one and only one fact at issue here, which is why I mention it whenever it’s relevant, but don’t address it otherwise except to respond when someone wants to push it – like you are now.

That fact is this: BHO has never publicly released probative documentation affirming his Article II eligibility to be elected POTUS.

Recognizing this fact doesn’t make me a so-called “Birther” – which is an Appeal to Ridicule trope used by those who don’t have a real argument. It doesn’t make me a conspiracy nut – a similar dodge – because I’m not speculating on why BHO’s refused to publicly release said documentation, and I haven’t stating anything other than a widely known but poorly understood fact when I make this observation. I know of several perfectly innocent and plausible explanations for why BHO would choose to hide his birth records, but the fact that I’m aware of them doesn’t make me a believer in them. I consider all of that to be completely beside the point.

The reason this indisputable fact is a distraction – and why I clearly identified it as such earlier – is (a) because people like you invest so much wasted energy into telling other people to STFU about it and (b) because every discussion on the topic – just like this idiotic comparison of NHS and US health care – strays off onto an irrelevant thesis that has nothing to do with the core issue being faced by our Republic.

With respect to health care, arguing the merits or failings of NHS does absolutely nothing to fix our broken health care market and bring routine health care costs back down to the affordable level they once were. Because fixing that market would eliminate the government’s excuse for seizing control of it, this should be the goal people focus on. But instead, they’d rather argue anecdotal “evidence”, hearsay and unknowables like what will happen here if we scrap our Constitution and implement a system similar to NHS. This is precisely what the Alinskyites want you to waste your time and energy on.

With respect to the eligibility issue, McCain’s case has already set the precedent on this. As long as BHO refuses to rise to that precedent, he demonstrates that he is unfit to serve as President. As long as the courts use double standards to treat him differently, they demonstrate that they are unfit to adjudicate a case where potential cries of racism! can so easily sway or altogether preclude their judgment. Arguing over where BHO may or may not have been born or whether or not he lost his citizenship in Indonesia does absolutely nothing to fix the gaping hole in our eligibility validation process that must prevent lapses like this in the future.

- So would have Hillary and all the other Dem candidates last year.
Hillary’s camp was the first one to note the problem, during the primaries.

- To me, sir, it is equivalent (if opposite) to the “Bush lied, people died” meme or the “9/11 troofers.”
That’s because you, sir, have been willingly trained to see it that way by BHO’s minions and – sadly – his so-called “opponents” who would rather throw in the towel and ignore Constitutional requirements because it’s “NOT A WINNER politically speaking” to pursue it in the same manner it was pursued against McCain. In every single case, these so-called “opponents” are scared sh!tless of being called a racist – simply because they’ve forgotten how to respond to such nonsense.

Just out of curiosity, HJ, how do you suppose we got the broken government we have now? By paying strict attention to the Constitution? Or was it by ignoring the Constitution whenever it’s “NOT A WINNER politically speaking” to enforce it? Mofo – who can’t get any of the other facts right – even understands this.

- …endlessly flailing away at it discredits you somewhat. … IMHO it makes you look a bit detached from reality to continually put forth this argument in public.
Better look at the preceding comments, HJ – and anything else posted here and elsewhere on this issue of late, for that matter. *I* am not the one ‘flailing away’ on this question. I haven’t “put forth [an] argument” – I have stated an inconvenient fact. Those who are afraid to deal with that inconvenient fact are, ironically, the ones who keep beating on it. Like you are now.

- Here’s the thing: The vast majority of Americans rightly or wrongly don’t believe that it’s a worthwhile argument at this point.
So – even if that were verifiable – back to my earlier question: why are YOU beating it now instead of just ignoring it as the “distraction” you claim it to be?

- …you brought it up again (completely off-topic) earlier in this thread …
Hardly. I mentioned it in the process of making a point where it was perfectly relevant. And what’s more, I IDENTIFIED IT AS A DISTRACTION.

Conversely, you’re the one who can’t seem to put it down – you and others who insist on lambasting so-called “Birthers” and desperately demonizing them by erroneously linking them to “fringe” 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Branch Davidians, Jonestown suicides or leftist propagandists out to destroy the Bush Administration with the “Bush Lied” lie.

Sorry. You just demonstrated that this issue is FAR more important to you than it is to me. I can only wonder why that is, but it’s becoming clear that you (and others who go off on anyone who mentions the eligibility issue) are far more concerned about how my opinion will make you look than you are about how my opinions make me look. That looks more and more like the real problem every day.

Your proposed debate would be healthy and beneficial, and maybe now is the time, given the tea party demonstartions. But I wonder if the time for such a value based argument passed decades ago, and if the wider populace might sigh with disgust (“oh that old argument”)and lose the momentum built largely on the reaction to cost, deficits and tampering with what exists and is fine for most people.

A whole new generation appears to have been put in place with little if ANY view that there are limits on federal power. People under 35 seem to look to D.C. for anything and everything. Even older people are so stifled by existing state laws or federal presence that they just assume “Washington will do it.” The Louisiana Gov., for example, was shocked when Bush just didn’t send in National Guard troops after Katrina–she thought he had an unfettered right to do so and was surprised to hear she had to ask. (“federalism? What’s that?”).

I guess my conceern is that it might not have appeal to many who might see it as a GOP power grab “when we’re supposed to be debating the merits of healthcare.”

@76. I blame Pelto: – I wonder if the time for such a value based argument passed decades ago, and if the wider populace might sigh with disgust (”oh that old argument”)and lose the momentum built largely on the reaction to cost, deficits and tampering with what exists and is fine for most people.

This is an excellent point, and it eats at my gut every day.

I wonder, every time I post a comment like this, whether we as Americans any longer deserve the gift that the Founders and people like my parents left us at the risk of their lives, their futures and their fortunes. I really do. And I wonder every day whether this same basic dynamic we’re watching in slo-mo is at the heart of the fall of every great civilization or culture that’s gone before us. My “Men-are-from-Mars” penchant for seeing a problem and wanting to solve it, rather than just “emote” about it, pushes me constantly to look for root cause… root cause… fundamental solution. Having spent 30 years debugging ridiculously complex systems, I’ve learned how easy it is to be distracted by symptomatic red herrings, and chase down paths only to find you entered the wrong test data, or to be tempted by band-aid solutions that only come back to bite one in the ass later.

The problem is this: if we wake up one day and find that we have fallen to the point where we can no longer find a reason to proclaim our idealism, for fear that “the wider populace might sigh with disgust” (or hell, even annoyance, which is more likely today) then we are well and truly frakked and we may as well forfeit the ballgame. If that’s where we are, then how can anyone justify the stress, aggravation and wasted energy, time and money required to fight for what America has already collectively given away?

I don’t think we’re there yet, obviously.

IMHO, as long as a statistically significant portion of that populace – like, say, the same small percentage responsible for resisting George III – is willing to proclaim that idealism, to get out and teach people how their government is supposed to work (and why it doesn’t), then we stand a chance of preserving the last, best hope of earth. General apathy and ignorance is not sufficient reason, I feel, to abandon that endeavor.

That’s why I think every effort to reveal this Democrat power grab for what it is should include references to the Constitutional aspects. Every time. Of course – talk about the raging stupidity of this so-called “plan”. But at the same time, condition people to think in Constitutional terms the same way they were conditioned to ignore them. Academia is not going to do it. Neither is our political “leadership”, much less those in the various media with a stranglehold on popular culture. The responsibility, unfortunately, falls to those who already know.

As far as the GOP concerned, they are now more an enemy to the Republic than BHO and his nascent corporatist/fascist junta of czars and staffers. They pretend to represent the interests of those who genuinely oppose socialism, while freely and endlessly compromising with it. You keep compromising and eventually you’ve given everything away. And that’s precisely the “strategy” the GOP has been using since Reagan left office.

Nothing can be lost by going around – or completely replacing – the GOP “leadership” in efforts to educate the people. Palin did this with ten free minutes and a Facebook posting. I believe she chose that route because she also recognizes the reality: the GOP is a huge part of the problem, not part of the solution. She’s essentially saying, “get on board with the rest of the country – which comprises a majority of conservatives in every State of the Union – or get the hell out of the way.”

Someone needs to shake people out of their entitlement mindset, and demonstrate to them how socially suicidal it really is. Yelling back and forth across the pond with epithets about how “my system is better than your system” will certainly never do that.

In that comment was talking about the proposed US system under Obamacare, Mark. NOT the NHS.

Earlier I was talking about the NHS.

Why don’t you cite the proper comment instead of playing mix-and-match to come up with something totally disingenuous. Or are you a Labor supporter? We have that ilk over here. But they’re called ‘progressives’. But they’re REALLY latter-day bolsheviks.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. My earlier comment, the one that seems to have rankled you’re ire, was about NICE as a ‘death panel’. Why don’t you address THAT?”

Chuckie, thanks for your prompt response. I was really referring to the plural you rather than the singular, right wingers in general ranting about healthcare systems they have little knowledge of, sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Regarding NICE, it mandates the treatments that are proven to be the most cost-effective so that the NHS budget can be spent in the way that delivers the most benefit to the most people, treatments which are not yet mandated can be provided at the discretion of individual NHS hospitals if they have the money left over to do so and individuals can always pay for new and experimental treatments if they can’t get them on the NHS. NICE DOES NOT impose caps on the amount of money that can be spent on the treatment of individuals as some in the US healthcare debate have tried to imply.

Unless you have a system with infinite resources then rationing has to occur, in a ‘socialised’ system clinical effectiveness and value for money are the criteria, in a private insurance system, insurers make similar decisions to NICE regarding what treatments they will and will not cover and treatment is then further rationed by ability to pay.

I believe that in the US (like the UK and elsewhere), you have to go on a waiting list for organ transplants which are rationed according to clinical need. Given your statements, would you recommend a change in this policy to one where those who can pay the most for organs go to the top of the list regardless of any objective measure of need?

No system is perfect but I think that most British people would rather improve our own system, keeping the universal coverage and ‘free at the point of use’ features rather than scrap it altogether and just have a system based on what you can afford.

While many people have ideas for reforming healthcare here, very very few want to just copy the US model. In fact I don’t see any great clamour to reform healthcare along US lines in any developed country.

“How many of these ‘socialised’ systems are purely socialized? Most developed countries have a private sector that people use when they don’t wish to wait or when they need some service that’s provided in a better manner.

Pure socialized medicine does not work either.”

As with most things in life, pure and untainted, ideological anything is not the best option, a pragmatic mixed system is what works best and that is along that mixed spectrum that every country finds itself.

….thanks for your prompt response. I was really referring to the plural you rather than the singular, right wingers in general ranting about healthcare systems they have little knowledge of, sorry if that wasn’t clear. — Mark J

So. You KNOW ‘all about’ the ObamaCare proposal?

Interesting. Please explain the ‘Death Panel’ and the ‘Government-Based Insurance’ plans to US.

RE: Hooooow NICE

Regarding NICE, it mandates the treatments that are proven to be the most cost-effective so that the NHS budget can be spent in the way that delivers the most benefit to the most people, treatments which are not yet mandated can be provided at the discretion of individual NHS hospitals if they have the money left over to do so and individuals can always pay for new and experimental treatments if they can’t get them on the NHS. NICE DOES NOT impose caps on the amount of money that can be spent on the treatment of individuals as some in the US healthcare debate have tried to imply. — Mark J

As I recall, Mike McNally doesn’t say they “impose caps”. Maybe I missed that. Where DID he say that, that you seem to pick on it?

RE: Infinite Resources

Unless you have a system with infinite resources then rationing has to occur, in a ’socialised’ system clinical effectiveness and value for money are the criteria, in a private insurance system, insurers make similar decisions to NICE regarding what treatments they will and will not cover and treatment is then further rationed by ability to pay. — Mark J

Looking at the fiascos going on in places like England, Canada and New Zealand, socialized medicine is a disaster for all too many individuals.

We don’t have ‘infinite’ resources. But we do have resources. Many of which are untapped, or rather, in my honestly held opinion, suppressed by the AMA, here. But that’s another and lengthy story in and of itself.

Yes. The insurance companies make decisions on what they’ll cover and what they won’t. BUT with insurance companies, you can change….provided what I said to someone else earlier and you were citing in your rant.
Can’t do that with the federal government.
Can you tell NICE to ‘stuff it’? And get a treatment they don’t approve of? We’re not talking about caps on money here. We’re talking about getting a treatment with your own money. A treatment not approved of by NICE.

RE: Waiting Lists

I believe that in the US (like the UK and elsewhere), you have to go on a waiting list for organ transplants which are rationed according to clinical need. Given your statements, would you recommend a change in this policy to one where those who can pay the most for organs go to the top of the list regardless of any objective measure of need? — Mark J

Apples and oranges, again.

The waiting list for organ transplants is for a lack of organs for transplant. Not, repeat NOT, for a lack of doctors or facilities to transplant them.

There’s something of a difference. Don’t you think?

Additionally, I do believe that there are six times as many MRI machines, per capita, with US than there are for the Brits.

THERE’S an excellent example of the difference between US and the Brits.

RE: Nothing Is ‘Perfect’

No system is perfect but I think that most British people would rather improve our own system, keeping the universal coverage and ‘free at the point of use’ features rather than scrap it altogether and just have a system based on what you can afford. — Mark J

True. It’s one of my favorite axioms….

There are advantages and disadvantages to every position you can take.

And yet, maybe THEY don’t know what they’re talking about either, when it comes to what the US has.

Probably because someone is keeping vital information from them. After all, most people tend to be rather parochial in their perspective on life. They only know what they see and hear. And if someone is keeping vital information from them…..they can’t make wise decisions.

RE: Clamourings

While many people have ideas for reforming healthcare here, very very few want to just copy the US model. In fact I don’t see any great clamour to reform healthcare along US lines in any developed country. — Mark J

As I said above, maybe they don’t know what they’re ‘missing’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What they are telling you may be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital. -- CBPelto]

Yes, you can tell NICE to stuff it and pay for a treatment out of your own pocket if you have the cash, just as you can to a US insurer who refuses to provide a treatment.

I’m not an expert at all on the specifics of the ‘Obamacare’ proposals, which if you care to look, I have not really commented on for this very reason.

All the information regarding the existing US health system is available to those who wish to find out about it, I really doubt that the only reason people don’t want to replicate a situation where people pay more than twice as much and die younger is because people are hiding the truth from them.

All the information regarding the existing US health system is available to those who wish to find out about it, I really doubt that the only reason people don’t want to replicate a situation where people pay more than twice as much and die younger is because people are hiding the truth from them.

Sorry to disappoint you. — Mark J

Hardly ‘disappointed’. Indeed, you’re sort of proving my point….about ‘arrogance of ignorance’ manifest in the Brits, vis-a-vis our two different approaches to medicine.

We seem to have more equipment and less lag-time in seeing a medical professional.

You seem to ignore that.

Why is that?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I’m not a big fan of paying so much money either. I don’t think that a liter of physiological saline should cost $250+(US).

@72. HonestJon: – The vast majority of Americans rightly or wrongly don’t believe that it’s a worthwhile argument at this point. Most of the rest couldn’t care less.

Oh, and HJ, as this article fades into the sunset, and therefore won’t likely be another endless “Birther vs Anti-Birther” discussion, I thought you might be interested in the following, which has been floating around the web (there’s a cite you won’t find Graham L. including in one of his reguripasted comments).

I’m pretty sure it started at Plains Radio Network about a week ago or so. I can’t vouch for everything in here, but I’ve spot-checked it, and it bears examination (as opposed to blind dismissal) if you’re really interested in knowing who’s still wondering whether BHO was ever eligible to be elected POTUS:

Who are the “Birthers” today – those people who feel that Barack Obama should release his personal records he has kept sealed by lawyers, contrary to precident of all former US Presidents? Here’s a short list of those who qualify according to the definitions of the White House “anti-birther” spokespeople, “birthers” in this instance meaning anyone who feels the story has some legitimacy.

This isn’t last years “birther” list:
******************************************************

Lou Dobbs
CNN’s longest-running news anchor who has been with CNN from the beginning and is at the top of the chain at CNN. Dobbs is convinced that there is a story and logic to this issue.

******************************************************

Israeli prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
who is convinced that Obama in unqualified and is demanding not just the Birth certificate, but passport and school records.

******************************************************

Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.)
questioned the authenticity of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate: “Obama is creating an enemies list of people who oppose this miserable health care plan. …That’s from a guy that can’t even show a long-form birth certificate. I think we all ought to be prepared to fight that.”

******************************************************

The EXTREMELY LIBERAL Huffington Post
is also not only calling for Obama to release his records, but has actually said the following: “The only thing weirder than the birthers are the anti-birthers.” In other words, it’s quite too weird to dedicate yourself to the idea that Obama should NOT release his records and put this issue to rest!

******************************************************

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego and all of Kenya, apparently, are not only convinced that Obama should release his records, but that he was actually born in their country. [I'm not sure how believable this one is... -ed.]

******************************************************

Lynn Samuels
A VERY LIBERAL NYC Radio fixture for over 25 years has not only called for Obama’s records, but has repeatedly called Obama a liar and ineligible to be president based on Obama’s reluctance to turn over his records.

******************************************************

11 US Conressmen sponsored a bill on the subject as a result of the “birther” controversy, making it quite implicit that they believe there is much to the issue that needs to be addressed and resolved.

******************************************************

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.,

******************************************************

Congressman Roy Blunt
said President Obama hasn’t produced a birth certificate

******************************************************

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala
“Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,”

******************************************************

Rep. Eric Swafford of Tennessee,
who agreed to be a plaintiff “for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain original birth certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetero aka Barack Hussein Obama.”

******************************************************

African American NY Pastor Dr James David Manning,
Founder and Pastor of ATLAH, one of urban New York City’s largest churches and a world-wide ministry, is absolutely outraged by Obama’s secretiveness, and preaches that in one of the most densely populated African American populations in the United States. Via online videos and a daily 3-hour radio broadcast heard Monday through Friday, almost daily Dr Manning calls for Obama to disclose his personal documents to put this issue to rest or resign from office.

******************************************************

Major Stefan Cook
refused deployment until Obama unsealed his records and proved eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief. When the case was admitted into court, the Government simply dropped Cook’s military orders without military consequence, though they did manage to get him fired from his civilian job.

******************************************************

Radio Host Steve Malzberg
Has taken on the issue passionately and is no stranger to the airwaves. A guest host on stations around the country sitting in for Bill Bennett and Mike Gallagher on the Salem Radio Network, and John Gibson and others on Fox Radio. The Steve Malzberg Show is heard nationally via the WOR Radio Network.

******************************************************

Ambassador Alan Keyes
Whose long and illustrious career goes back to the Reagan Administration and one of Obama’s most uncompromising critics is one of the Plaintiffs demanding Obama show his credentials in legal action.

******************************************************

Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan
sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship.

******************************************************

Lt. Easterling, As a retired US Army SFC,
Filed suit to force Obama to prove his eligibility.

******************************************************

Local newspapers,
fueled by an education from their angry readers, have begun to openly report and editorialize that the story is a legit issue, at least insomuch as Obama fuels the issue himself with seeming deep paranoia. Here’s a good example: “An Open letter To Barack Obama”http://newsblaze.com/story/20081102053144zzzz.nb/topstory.html

******************************************************

Newspapers around the world
ranging from the liberal London Times to the Conservative Canadian Free Press to Russia’s socialist newspaper, Pravda, have called out Obama to release his long form birth certificate, Pravda going so far as to insist that Obama step down from office if he does not. Here are a couple of examples from Pravda

Last week there was a blistering condemnation of Obama and the leftist media in the US on Obama’s citizenship issue at Australia.TO , Australia’s official national news website, which now puts these angers and complaints all the way to the other side of the world. Here’s the op-ed

Lawyers around the country
are taking up dozens of very recent US Soldier’s cases to determine if Obama is eligible to be their commander-in-chief. These are all highly educated individuals and the military men are often career, high-ranking officers.

******************************************************

The Globe, While generally regarded as a tabloid,
has nevertheless had two very serious front-page stories covering, generally, the US military suits against Obama for his records.

******************************************************

Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers
agreed to be a plaintiff in legal action

******************************************************

A well-documented AOL poll
recently showed as much as 85% of those who participated believe that Obama should release his personal records and put this issue to rest. [note: like other AOL polls, this one is more difficult to spam because of the login requirement. -ed.]

******************************************************

Virtually every cable news outlet
has mentioned on-air, sometimes repeatedly, that they get thousands of e-mails *every day* from citizens demanding more coverage of this issue.

******************************************************

The Supreme Court,
alone, has to date received more than 60,000 letters from Americans on this issue, all demanding disclosure from Obama.

******************************************************
World Net Daily,
a respected online news organization and one of the few online-only news organizations recognized at White House news briefings, has a petition for Obama to disclose his birth certificate, and already has well in excess of a *half million signatures* alone. [I'm not sure how "respected" these guys really are - they're now claiming he was born in 1957 or something. -ed.]

******************************************************

BY THIS RECKONING everyone BUT the White House and their political allies and operatives in the entire world are kooky “birthers”.

In 6 months, thanks to Obama’s unprecedented LACK of the transparency he promised, growingly, Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world, allies and contentious leaders alike, cannot rest assured if treaties signed by Obama are legal, or even if he can be trusted. For those who have less concern about political matters, Obama has made the US the laughing stock of the world. Not the “birthers”. Obama. Because only he can end this mess he, himself, created when he pro-actively sealed his records from public view through his lawyers.

Moho #12: So what is it about the NHS that causes doctors working within that system to favor denying care to smokers, the obese, people who don’t exercise enough, etc.?

Mark #81 We pay more, Yes. Nobody here is proposing “replicating” our system. But part of the high costs in the system have come as reactions to distortions in market forces by tax breaks given to employers, but not individuals, for insurance.

Die youger? Maybe not because of the medical system. Why are cancer survival rates so much better in the U.S.? http://tinyurl.com/ksoyph

We are both banging our heads against a brick wall.
They don’t want to know.I’ll try again.

We do not give a toss what health system you all have in the U.S.A.
Ignorance isn’t the problem it’s the illusion of knowledge that we are objecting to.

82. Sharpshooter:

“For all its flaws, Britons have a soft spot for the NHS”

Considering that’s all they’ve ever known, that is not surprising in the least.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over that comment.
Ironically you are making our point for us.

As i have said before i work in the N.H.S have done for 20yrs,as with Mike we live here and use it.
You should be asking question’s,that is if people really want to know more?

O,K, the N.H.S was formed post ww2.On return the recovery and health of our people depended on wealth.

The country had been bombed killing and maiming women and children from all walks of life.
People had fought shoulder to shoulder and were now not equal.
Health and death shouldn’t be based on ability to pay.

The N.H.S has and will have to evolve. It doesn’t cover everything.
It is not a left wing policy,even Thatcher didn’t try to abolish it.

Why is it so supported? ‘We don’t know any better’,as Mark said we are not North Korea.
We are well versed in it’s problems.

It’s tax payer that leads the N.H.S not the Government.
Elections are won and lost here on health care and education.The policy reflects society.
We don’t just blindly support it? We go on and on about it .We are share holders.

Immigration and asylum seekers are having a huge impact on the N.H.S.
As in the U.S this is causing problems. Some seem to come straight from the plane to were i work demanding treatment- however not in English,we have to use interpreters that cost a fortune.
It is hard to debate this without being accussed of being racist,but we are trying.

I have patients from Afghanistan complaining about air conditioning.(they live in caves).

We do not like being taken advantage of. But to not offer healthcare ,not just emergency is about our ideology not theres.

No one is saying you should adopt our system.

If N.I.C.E is going to be protrayed as a death squad,would someone have the manners to read about it please.

“Hardly ‘disappointed’. Indeed, you’re sort of proving my point….about ‘arrogance of ignorance’ manifest in the Brits, vis-a-vis our two different approaches to medicine.

We seem to have more equipment and less lag-time in seeing a medical professional. ”

arrogance of ignorance, could go both ways I think.

More equipment, more testing, less lag time, fluffier towels, twice the price, yet still you die younger.

The average American pays just as much in tax to fund socialised medicine (medicare, medicaid, VA) as the average Brit does (NHS), the unfortunate thing is that while working age tax paying Brits benefit, working age tax paying yanks are just paying for others!

“It’s all lifestyle choices” I hear you say to explain why Americans die so young but doesn’t the argument go that ‘socialised’ medicine makes people care less about their own health? It seems that if we in Europe have such terrible healthcare, then we must look after ourselves a whole lot better to live longer than our American friends.

We Brits actually drink more, smoke more and have just as lousy a diet as you do anyway so the ‘lifestyles’ explanation doesn’t seem to hold water. What is it then?

85. goy: Thanks for the replies, but I’m really not interested in debating (pro or con) about this issue with you. I understand that you feel very strongly about it and I’m sympathetic to your obsession. Personally, I’ve gotten to the point where I really don’t care where Obama was born, raised, educated, etc. It’s just not worth the effort to me. And here’s why: He’s NOT going to release any records disproving his citizenship. Period. You can’t make him and (apparently) noone else can either. The Supreme Court IIRC decided against hearing the case. So it’s not gonna happen (rightly or wrongly). IMHO, it would be better for conservatives (and you) to JUST DROP IT or else risk alienating more of the public-at-large. It is not a winning argument at this point. We have much meaner bears to wrestle!

That having been noted, I never told you to STFU. I was simply recommending (unasked for, certainly) to you that continuing to bring this argument up will somewhat discredit you (and therefore your other arguments) in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans. IMHO, of course. Do as you will, however! And good luck!

regards

P.S. This is off-topic completely as concerns this thread, so let’s both agree to just drop it at this point. Deal?

Moho.. Moho. My intent on posting those 2 pieces is an example of how far reaching the Government is in the UK.

As for the site you’d recommended, it was different. You’d had an ‘s’ on the end of your post.. making it unable to open.

I’d had a rebuttal to your site due to quality of life for senior citizens in the UK as compared to senior citizens in the U.S.

I’d spent a great deal of time in the UK while in the military. The periods I saw these old souls was to/ from church and the grocery store.. Senior citizens in the UK don’t resemble ‘Miss Bucket’s’ energy or enthusiasm.

I live a healthy lifestyle. Though if I hadn’t, the Government, as well as my employer (in the aforementioned article, it’s both for the hospital staff) hasn’t ANY business intervening with my personal life.

If this other lifestyle is affecting my day-to-day work production it should be taken into account and addressed. But a blanketed statement for ALL smokers and overweight folks.

Then the American people should take note from our neighbors and approach Barney Frank, Barack Obama, Newt Gengrich, Nancy Pelosi (I don’t believe botox and the ‘Designing Women’ shoulder padded jackets are healthy. Nor ‘chique’) and myriad of other politicians about their unhealthy lifestyle choices and reacquaint and the American people with a healthier alternative..? Yikes.

88. Anonymous:
We are not naive or stupid we demand to choose what is done with our taxes.

Elections are won and lost over health care, we are deciding on policy.
It’s laughable to think we are like communists .

We may share a language but our countries culture and beliefs are different.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health.

It is made up with NHS staff, healthcare professionals, patients and carers, industry and the academic world.

NICE interventional procedures guidance protects patients’ safety and supports people in the NHS in the process of introducing new procedures. Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but also look at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work.

The topics NICE develops guidance on comes from a number of sources, including the Department of Health, healthcare and public health professionals, patients, carers and the general public.

The Patient and Public Involvement Programme (PPIP) provides advice and support to NICE on patient, carer and public involvement. The PPIP currently works with NICE to develop opportunities for involving patients, carers and members of the public across NICE’s work programmes.

We are not naive or stupid we demand to choose what is done with our taxes. — mags

I hear that a LOT on this side of the Big Pond. Mostly from so-called ‘progressives’ who do a LOT of ‘projection’.

RE: Communists

It’s laughable to think we are like communists . — mags

Yeah. I can hear the nigh maniacal laughter from the middle of the States.

By the way. I didn’t say “Communists”.

RE: Evasion, Anyone?

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. — mags

Is it a government-associated ‘organization’?

We have “independent organizations” this side of the Big Pond. Things like AMTrack.

How does NICE relate to the government? Based on what Mike McNally says, it looks to be a rather close relationship. How close?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. When was that last time you watch George Lucas’ classic, THX-1138?